Is The Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Law?

seem like the best way at first, in the long run money would be better

Mandatory minimum laws, which set different minimum sentences for crack and powder cocaine possession, are policies that are inflexible, “one-size-fits-all” sentencing laws that undermine the constitutional principle that the punishment should fit the crime and undermine the judicial power to punish an individual in context of the specific circumstances. Similarly, 3-strikes laws also ignores judicial discretion. Truth-in-sentencing policies refer to policies created to have a convict serve the full sentence, regardless of good behavior or other deterrent. These policies are created to only incapacitate people—more specifically minorities—not to rehabilitate them. More people in jail and longer sentences are not helping ensure public safety.

Mandatory minimum sentencing laws are fundamentally un-American. The Boston University Law Journal states that “mandatory minimum sentences provide plenary decision-making power to prosecutors of the executive branch, while heavily restricting the discretion of the judiciary”(Riley, 2011, p. 286). This significantly weakens the checks and balances of the criminal justice system. This means that mandatory minimums are in conflict with the

Three salient points from the films/lectures were assessments of change from the five stages of change model (Norcross, j. c., n.d.), the Fair Sentencing Act for mandatory minimum sentences (American Civil Liberties Union, 2010), and eliminating government involvement in regulation of drugs and alcohol substance, while allowing the various states to manage control (ABC News.com, 2007).

The mandatory minimum sentencing is about a fixed ruling of a crime that a judge is expected to deliver. Congress has enacted mandatory minimum sentencing laws. It was to impose the mandatory sentencing an offender would receive for crimes that were committed. The mandatory minimum punishment guidelines would require for judges to hand down judgement for a certain length of time. This would mean that for crimes that are committed there are criminal sentencing guidelines, this would give judges a certain discretion on how to proceed in sentencing an offender. These minimum sentencing apply to many of the crimes committed on society, such as violent, drug-related crimes and for those habitual offenders. In cases where the offender commits a crime and is a repeat offender then it should be left up the presiding judge to serve out justice. People who commit low level crimes should be punished but not to the extent of going to prison for a long period of time. Congress has enacted these guidelines so that the criminal justice system would not be burden with smaller crimes or be overwhelmed. Lengthy sentencing hearings seldom are necessary, the disputes about sentencing elements must be resolved with sensitivity concern and carefulness. A dispute exists about any factor important to the sentencing determination then a judge will use his discretion to hand down equal and fair judgement. Legislator statements during debates on mandatory

The concept of mandatory sentencing is a relatively new idea in the legal field. It was first introduced in 1951 with the Boggs Act, and it made simple marijuana possession a minimum of two to ten years with a $20,000 fine. This was eventually repealed by Congress in 1970, but mandatory sentences came back with the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Since then, the scope and presence of mandatory sentencing has only grown, especially mandatory sentences for drug related offenses. Recently, there has been a growing concern over the use and implementation of mandatory minimum sentencing, with many believing it reduces a judge’s ability to give out a sentence that they feel accordingly fits the crime. Many advocates for mandatory

The mandatory sentence of two years’ imprisonment is unconstitutional because it is “cruel and unusual punishment” which infringes upon the accused’s right not to be subjected to such treatment. Firstly, it is determined that the mandatory minimum sentence in this case is grossly disproportionate to the accused’s circumstances and would be reasonably foreseeable that the provision would have the same overreaching effect on other offenders. Secondly, the provision in question in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is not saved by section 1 of the Charter as it has failed the prescribed Oakes test. The test gives weight to the law’s objective in comparison to the means of achieving it, which in this case, impaired too heavily on the right of the accused.

Mandatory minimum sentencing laws entail binding prison terms to a certain length for people who have been convicted of state or federal crimes. These intransigent, “universally adaptable” sentencing laws may seem like an easy and quick solution for crime. However, these laws prevent judges from suiting the punishment to the criminal according to their offenses. Mandatory minimum sentencing causes not only state but federal prisons to overcrowd, extortionate tax costs, and deflect from law enforcement funds.

Why are so many violent criminals walking free while so many non-violent offenders are locked up? Although various aspects have fueled this inequity of justice, the factors that have contributed the most to this development are, undoubtedly, the War on Drugs and mandatory minimum sentencing laws which have led to punishment disproportionate to the offense.

In the article “Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: A Failed Policy,” the author highlights how mandatory minimum sentencing is a policy that has failed in attempt to put an end to drug crimes. Batey stated that the attempts of federal and state thought that they could “get tough on crime,” particularly drug offense, by eliminating the sentence discretion of judges and restoring it with long minimum sentences that applied regardless of defendant's individual circumstances (Batey 24). Moreover, the mandatory minimum sentences take authority away from the judge and give it to the prosecutor, who decides whether to charge the defendant with a crime carrying a long minimum sentence or much less offense. Withal, mandatory minimum sentences have failed due to giving America’s power too much power in plea bargaining, an imbalance that has led to the incarceration of persons too fearful to insist on a hearing that might have released them (Batey 25). Finally, Batey mentions that mandatory minimum sentence policy has filled prisons with the wrong people, which are minor players, not drug kingpins, and even some who are innocent (Batey 25).

Mandatory minimum sentences are set by Congress and Judges can't change the sentencing. They apply to drug offenses and require automatic minimum prison terms for certain crimes. For example, selling 28 grams of crack cocaine triggers a minimum sentence of five years in prison. Even though Robyn's judge believed that Robyn deserved lower sentencing, it was not under his discretion. Bush-Baskette (2000) commented on how mandatory minimum sentencing standards had a major impact on women and being the sole caretaker of minor children was no longer being considered for sentencing purposes. It is clear that Robyn had become sober therefore her sentencing should be less than 10 years. Her sentencing not only impacts her life, but also impacts her children. Prison is not an effective treatment to drug use and crimes, especially low-level

Mandatory sentencing is not anything new. It began in the 1970s. The main purpose for mandatory sentencing was to try to get rid of the drug lords and to eliminate most of the nation’s street drug selling. It was to impose that the same crime would have the same sentence all over the nation. Some of the negatives that rose from mandatory sentencing were nonviolent drug offenders and first time offenders who were receiving harsh sentences. Inmate populations and correction costs increased and pushed states to build more prisons. Judges were overloaded with these cases, and lengthy prison terms were mandated to these young offenders. Mandatory sentencing is an interesting topic in which I would like to discuss my opinions in going against

But I do understand why the mandatory minimum sentence should be taken down or at least changed. In 2013, a “46-year-old fast food restaurant worker John Horner was sentenced to 25 years in prison for selling $1,800 worth of painkillers” (Business insider, para. 1). Horner was a father of three and a drug addict that was put away for decades due to MMS. In my opinion as a solution, I think for some of the laws in MMS the government should go over them throughly and make major changes that are fair but yet get the job done. I do think mandatory minimum sentence is important and should be kept but, in cases like this I feel like the government has a lot of work ahead of them trying to improve the system.

President Obama made headlines in January when he granted clemency to roughly 2000 inmates, mostly convicted of drug-possession crimes, The clemency pardoned the prisoners from their mandatory minimums in an effort to rebuild their lives. Mandatory minimums are the required amount of time that convicted felons have to serve for the crime they are guilty of, which is influenced by the type and frequency of the crime. Obama’s action is representative of the increasing criticism of mandatory minimums, due to the belief that instead of creating a safer landscape, the minimums only increase prison populations. Mandatory minimums are detrimental due to their influence on society’s perception of prisoners, psychological toll on prisoners, and destruction of prisoners’ relationships; many propose alternatives to the mandatory minimum such as restoring sentencing power to judges and creating rehabilitation programs as an alternative to minimum sentencing.

These guidelines are also sometimes referred to as mandatory minimums or federal sentencing guidelines. They were created by congress. The key part here is convicted criminals, so they would only apply to criminals who have been found guilty. The phrase treated fairly is an attempt to take out bias or disproportionate sentences for minority groups. The key part of the second half of this statement is “judges should be required to follow.” When a criminal is convicted of a certain crime and that certain crime falls under certain sentencing guidelines, the judge has no choice but to sentence that criminal to at least the minimum sentence in the guidelines. The statement is very straightforward and the applications of the statement, in theory, should treat criminals